Oh so now you call it an 'explosion' instead of an explosion? That somehow makes up for your mistake? Inflation and explosions are not the same. If you persist to call it an explosion, you are only losing credibility like I stated to Ron. It is a mistake that takes about 5 minutes to investigate. If you do not even bother to do that, why would I assume you have researched anything else?

<admin edit: mud-slinging is a type ofad Hominem abusive. and will not be allowed in this forum, Further , dragging your mistake from one post to another only exacerbates a bad situation by compounding your mistake> RonAthelas,

So that we can all be clear, can you give us a short version of the “Big Bang” as you understand it. Then we can examine it and see if it passes muster.

On the contrary, the first law and second law do not disprove the Big Bang in any way. It only does if you use the wrong version of the Big Bang where the universe came from nothing instead of a singularity, which would once again be a mistake that takes about 5 min to look up. I already granted you that the singularity isn't well known. In fact we cannot know much about it. But the theory most certainly does not propose the universe came from nothing.

I will postpone answering this until I received your answer to what exactly you believe about the Big Bang.

I'm still reading your two posts and I will reply to them. Just that I want to respect your work (took probably some time to write all that). And formulate a decent answer.

Our dialogue has become long and takes much work to answer. I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate my posts and answer them.

You confuse me. I stated that abiogenesis is exactly that: getting life from non-life (or the research to do so).

Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I’m sorry.

Athelas, I am astonished that you can’t see this simply truth. When you were typing, “getting life from non-life” why did you not ask yourself if that is even possible. Suppose that I posited to you that it’s possible to get one from zero. Would you waste your time pondering this concept? I say no! You would dismiss it out of hand (and rightly so) and deem me a foolish man, not worthy of Don Corlone’s respect even.

The (homo)chirality issue. Three words were enough to say what you wanted to say ;-)

I’m showing here the impossible hurdles that evolution has to overcome. Please tell me this is not your best rebuttal.

This did pose a lot of problems but they are finding solutions for this problem.

What solutions? If you are trying to do math and you erroneously believe that two plus two are five, can you ever reach truth? No! I submit that scientist can study abiogenesis until they’re cross-eyed. If the basic premise is false, the conclusion will always be false.

That's one of the good things about the research in the field of abiogenesis that even if it isn't at all possible, we are getting a lot of information regarding many different topics, including chirality of amino-acids. In fact, it almost seems like they are finding too many solutions (radioactive decay, starlight, polarized light, absorption by certain crystals) for this problem in order to pin it down to one cause. I'm not sure that chirality is really such a good argument against abiogenesis anymore.

Amino acids that are otherwise identical come in two distinct structural forms--left-handed and right-handed. In life-forms, essentially all amino acid bio-molecules are of the left-handed form while sugars are right-handed. The problem for the evolutionist is that all conceived ways of producing amino acids “accidentally” (i.e., as was thought to have happened on the primordial earth) yield both left- and right-handed amino acids simultaneously. Not only does this not explain the exclusivity of left-handed amino acids in life, but also, when the two forms interact directly, the result is toxic to life. Thus, any process producing the amino acids required by life would seemingly have doomed life as well. So why are you not sure that “chirality is really such a good argument… anymore”? Getting all left-handed forms by random chance would be the equivalent of going to Las Vegas and rolling 1,000 sevens in succession. After the first twenty, two very large security persons would immediately take you to a room in the basement for interrogation.

I'm not a theist nor an atheist for a reason Teejay: that reason is because I'm sceptical towards both.

Athelas, so you’re skeptical of both. But shouldn’t you be skeptical of being skeptical of both? The only two choices you have are evolution or creation. Since they are contradictory, both can’t be true. Right? So if you are skeptical of both, you can never, never, never reach truth.

Recall that in our previous dialogue, I pointed out to you that if your worldview is false, your interpretation of reality will be flawed. Refresher: A worldview is a set of presuppositions through which you view any evidence presented to you. For example, there is no way that the evolutionist (who dismisses a Creator God) can justify the immaterial laws of logic in his worldview. The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, and universal. Now the atheist evolutionist uses logic, but when he does so, he is inconsistent with his worldview. He uses God’s laws of logic to argue that God does not exist. This is like denying the existence of air while breathing in air to make the argument. The atheist worldview is irrational, illogical, and arbitrary.

What one side is asking the other, being conclusive empirical data, is also missing on the other side.

All knowledge is not obtained by empiricism (observation). If empiricism is your ultimate standard by which all truth claims are tested, I must ask how you know this to be true. This claim itself is not something that the empiricist can observe. Since knowledge can’t be seen, how could anyone possible know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? And if empiricism is proved in some way other than by observation, then it refutes itself.

There is simply no reason to accept either abiogenesis and macro-evolution nor Creation based on data alone, even though the truth is that we must've come from somewhere. We aren't eternal beings so we had an origin.

Athelas, please consider what you posit here. First you state that there is no reason to accept either. But these are your only two choices. A cursory reading of your posts would not render you a creationist by any stretch. You have countered every theistic/creationist argument presented to you—whether it be logical, biological, cosmological, teleological, scientific, theological, and Texas horse-senseical—with an atheist/evolutionist argument. In light of this, am I to believe you when you post, “There is simply no reason to accept abiogenesis and macro evolution nor Creation”?

“…the truth is that we must've come from somewhere. We aren't eternal beings so we had an origin.

Careful, Athelas! You’re getting dangerously close to the Truth. While you’re not an eternal being past, you are an eternal being future. You will eternally exist—with your Creator God or apart from Him. But it’s your choice. But for you to exist now and eternity future, there has to be an Entity who has always existed. You are not to first to ponder and conclude that you had to come from somewhere and had to have an Origin. C. S. Lewis, who was an atheist philosopher, started his quest for truth with the same question. I will quote his conclusion:

“If you can even for the moment, endure the suggested picture of Nature, let us now consider the other factor—the Reasons, or instances of Reason which attack her. We have seen that rational thought is not part of the system of Nature. Within each man there must be an area (however small) of activity which is outside or independent of her. In relation to Nature, rational thought goes on ‘of its own accord’ or exists ‘on its own’. It does not follow that rational thought exists absolutely on its own. It might be independent of Nature by being dependent on something else. For it is not dependence simply but dependence on the non-rational which undermines the credentials of thought. One man’s reason has been led to see things by the aid of another man’s reason and is none the worse for that. It is thus still an open question whether each man’s reason exists absolutely on its own or whether it is the result of some (rational) cause—in fact, of some other Reason. That other Reason might conceivably be found to depend on a third, and so on; it would not matter how far this process was carried provided you found Reason coming from Reason at each stage. It is only when you are asked to believe in Reason coming from non-reason that you must cry Halt, for, if you don’t, all thought is discredited. It is therefore obvious that sooner or later you must admit a Reason which exists absolutely on its own. The problem is whether you or I can be such a self-existent Reason.

“This question almost answers itself the moment we remember what existence ‘on one’s own’ means. It means that kind of existence which Naturalists attribute to ‘the whole show [matter only]’ and Supernaturalists attribute to God. For instance, what exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything else could make it begin to exist then it could not exist on its own but because of something else. It must also exist incessantly; that is, it cannot cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it it would then be a dependent being.” C.S. Lewis, Miracles, p.p. 41 & 42

The chirality issue was conclusive evidence once to dismiss abiogenesis. I must credit those people for coming back strong with a range of possible answers. That also tells me to be cautiounous to dismiss a possibility on the absense of evidence alone.

You’re forgetting yourself. Above you posted that there was no good reason to accept “either” position. But, again and again, on all your posts, you argue against creationism and for evolution.

Odds makers in Las Vegas and mathematicians would be the first to tell you the chirality is a conclusive argument. If you deem yourself to be one of the “undecided” or “unconvinced,” why do you always, always, always side with atheist/evolutionism and argue against creationism? Rather than answer me, I would rather you answer yourself—truthfully. Remember Jesus said that “man’s heart is deceitful above all things.” Also remember what Paul added to this: Romans 1:18-22.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:39 PM

Yeah, I don't care if you want to believe in an abiogenesis where you cook the atoms for thirty min in an oven and poor hot chocolate saus over it at the end, it is a matter of not misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people. Even if the hypothesis is absurd, there is no reason to twist it or overcomplicate it even if the absurdity of the hypothesis would remain the same.

Also do not forget that you are losing credibility by such misrepresentations. It is like calling the Big Bang an explosion for instance. That's a rookie mistake. Certainly in the case of abiogenesis there is no need to do so, you can only do "harm" to yourself really.

Athelas, even though you got the old banhammer down upon your head, this morning I thought a little more about what you've said and the problem you had with my use of the terminology "smashed together" as it relates to the chemicals in the primordial soup model; therefore I am replying in the hopes that you see this.

You've stated that "smashing together" is not accurate and in your quotes above you characterize it as "misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people". I disagree. If one were to answer the following question honestly...

Could the chemicals in the primordial soup combine to form amino acids if they were not in close proximity, in contact with one another to begin with?

I think it's obvious that the answer to the above question is NO, they could not form amino acids. Therefore my coining the foolishness of the primordial soup chemicals as "smashing together" is actually truthful, it's just a different perception than the one you have. I see the chemicals as coming together, prior to the reaction, and you see it as just the reaction itself.

But the bottom line is, seeing the chemicals as "smashing together" is not a misrepresentation at all.

I will take your silence, your lack of a rebuttal on this matter as your agreement with what I've stated. Oh wait, your silence may be due to the fact that the banhammer was recently "smashed" upon your head.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:54 PM

Athelas, it matters not one whit whether or not you “care” about someone else’s beliefs; because they are “beliefs” (i.e. faith statements). What matters if you can provide evidences/facts to back up your assertions, and you have failed to do so.

If an explanation (in this case abiogenesis) is based upon assumption, others assumptions cannot misrepresent them, because BOTH are based upon assumption. Further, if proponents of abiogenesis claim that chemicals came together to form life, and someone who rightly opposes such illogical nonsense uses the adjective “smashed” in front of the word “together” as a descriptor for the notion of the “mixing”* of these chemicals, the nonbeliever in abiogenesis has not committed any kind of misrepresentation. The may have simply placed more exuberance on the use of the adjective, but they correctly described the notion of the process that the abiogenesis believe is basically attempting to promulgate.

* Note: Mix - "to combine together: transitive verb to combine ingredients by putting them together or blending them to make a single new substance.

Conclusion: It matters not one whit if you like their descriptive usage of the adjective, as there was absolutly nothing wrong with said usage.

Once again, it was not at all twisted OR overcomplicated. If anything, it was oversimplified. In the context of the conversation, “smashed together” is an oversimplified version of a presupposed chemical reaction. And, in some cases, “smashed together” can be a very accurate descriptor. Further, since the abiogenesist has absolutely NO idea what happend, they have absolutely NO grounds to complain about the descriptor.

In fact, it almost seems like they are finding too many solutions (radioactive decay, starlight, polarized light, absorption by certain crystals) for this problem in order to pin it down to one cause. I'm not sure that chirality is really such a good argument against abiogenesis anymore.

Can you provide links? Your confidence has piqued my curiosity.

What a shame you got banned before you could respond. I was hoping you would provide me links to show me exactly what you were claiming so you could not claim that I misunderstood or misrepresented what you were saying. I guess I will have to do the best with what you gave me:

For the record, starlight IS polarized light, unless you can suggest some OTHER significant source of natural, polarizable light that is persistent enough to be able to influence chirality. Best case scenario, polarized light produces a 35.5% enantiomeric excess (Meaning a sample with 67.75% of L amino acids and 32.25% of D amino acids (right handed)) when the original sample is 99.9% destroyed. The other problem is that this light doesn't just stop destroying when it is convenient for protein production. It will persist in destroying until the whole sample is gone. Furthermore, this light does not exist here on earth, although it is suggested it might have been here in the past, this is only a convenient conjecture (ad hoc theory) to accommodate the possibility of abiogenesis. It has also been suggested that this process could have happened in outer space, see below for why this is unreasonable.

Radioactivity must mean beta decay or weak force, which is shown to be too weak to have any functional effect on the overall chirality.

Crystals just push the problem to a new battlefield. Only 10% of crystals that form have a homochiral surface. Of course 50% of those are L and 50% are D (right handed), so it is not exactly a solution to the problem is it?

Furthermore, if amino acids are constantly being produced, then they would be produced at a rate that would continually contaminate such processes.

There are not "too many solutions". Furthermore, solving the homochirality issue is just the tip of the iceburg to solving abiogenesis. Consider again my post #157. Consider also that if you had a solution of 100% pure left handed amino acids, you would still be a far cry from showing how DNA formed, or self-replicating RNA, or any type of cell that could possibly explain how life formed from naturalistic processes. Also, outside of a primordial cell, these processes would be useless, being exposed to numerous destructive forces in a natural environment.

Nice try. You threw an ELEPHANT! But I have a big catchers mitt just for such occasions.

Call me an eternal optimist, but I think I can still save you from spending an eternity in Hell apart from your creator. If you want, send me a PM, if that's possible, and I will send you my email address. I can show you that God exists. But if you have already made up your mind to reject any truth presented to you, then do no contact me. I must let you go to Hell. Some say that the harshes torment in Hell is eternal regret:

Athelas, even though you got the old banhammer down upon your head, this morning I thought a little more about what you've said and the problem you had with my use of the terminology "smashed together" as it relates to the chemicals in the primordial soup model; therefore I am replying in the hopes that you see this.

You've stated that "smashing together" is not accurate and in your quotes above you characterize it as "misrepresenting the assumptions/beliefs of a group of people". I disagree. If one were to answer the following question honestly...

Could the chemicals in the primordial soup combine to form amino acids if they were not in close proximity, in contact with one another to begin with?

I think it's obvious that the answer to the above question is NO, they could not form amino acids. Therefore my coining the foolishness of the primordial soup chemicals as "smashing together" is actually truthful, it's just a different perception than the one you have. I see the chemicals as coming together, prior to the reaction, and you see it as just the reaction itself.

But the bottom line is, seeing the chemicals as "smashing together" is not a misrepresentation at all.

I will take your silence, your lack of a rebuttal on this matter as your agreement with what I've stated. Oh wait, your silence may be due to the fact that the banhammer was recently "smashed" upon your head.

I think you got him on chirality. He's trying to divert you by semantics. Smashing together or not? I have to ask athelas, what does his opinion of your credibility have to do with the belief that 20 chiral amino acids could segregate themselves 1000 times over, with no achiral molecules, in order to make the first proteins? In the lab, in order to make a self replicating RNA molecule, they have to continually supply the proper constituents, totally guided by very educated people. Thus demonstrating the need for intelligence in such a process.

It defies reason to believe that such could happen without knowledgable manipulation. Demonstrating again that man believes what he DESIRES to believe. Athelas is a victim of high sounding words, and that which appears grandiose.